A few months ago, I took a month long trek around europe and viewed what would be considered as some of the finest art in the world and I can certainly see why it deserves that moniker. But, at the same time, I was wondering, why did I have to travel to almost literally the other side of the planet to see such things? It seems to me that there is no inherent value apart from psychological from viewing an authentic art piece over a very good copy.
Forgers apparently frequently produce copies of famous art pieces which require several experts many months and much high tech equipment to detect. I very much doubt the average museum goer or art enthusiast would every be able to tell an authentic from a copy. If such artists turned their skills to a more legitimate purpose, dozens of copies of some of the most famous paintings in the world could be distributed to the major galleries around the globe where they would become accesible to a much, much wider range of people. Yet it seems either the art establishment or the paying public insists on authentic works only, never copies.
Is it because the great artists of yore do have some innate technical prowess that a talented modern copier could not reproduce or is it a matter of economics and psychology?
It’s important only from the value we give it. An original is always more valuable than a copy, touched by the hand of “the master.” But I do agree - seeing a well made copy can have as much scholarly value. It’s the intrinsic value of a piece or original work that adds the extra facet of awe.
Have you ever seen the real Declaration of Independance, The Mona Lisa, or a step further - The Great Pyramids? There is only “one” original. One spark of creation from which others derive value.
I’m cool with copies. And I’m cool with posters, too. The only hard-on anyone has with copy art is when someone tries to pass it off as the original. Investment collectors obviously have an interest in the work being the real thing. But if you just want to surround yourself with beautiful art, posters and prints are just fine. Unless you’re a pretentious snob. Then, I suppose it would make a difference.
This isn’t intended as a hijack, but the question of “original” will become quite a can of worms as more artists embrace electronic media, like Photoshop or Illlustrator, to create works of art. Since a copy is 100% exactly the same as the original… there won’t be any extrinsic value associated with the medium.
I had a teacher back in college argue the value of electronic media in the art world to a curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The curator was obstinate about the medium. My professor argued that the monitor which the artist used is the actual canvas, and not the file, since it was through the monitor by which the artist created the art. And since all monitors are different, only the original monitor could possibly display the art in its original correctness.
Can you imagine a museum with actual monitors used by masters of electronic media? What would happen if you unplug it?
Uh, reproductions of damn near every famous painting on earth are available at reasonable prices. Just google the title of your favorite painting and “reproduction,” and I bet that you’ll find something quite reasonable in price. Heck, the National Portrait Gallery has a web page dedicated to helping people get these sorts of things. Link. Also, it is not uncommon for some paintings to be loaned to other museums for temporary displays.
As far as museums displaying reproductions, some do. However, think about it from the museum’s point of view. What’s going to bring in more patrons? A copy of the Mona Lisa, or an original of a somewhat less renouned artist? As stated above, anybody can get a copy of the Mona Lisa, so why waste wall space in displaying something that anyone can get a hold of? OTOH, the originals of a different artist have the attraction of being unique, and probably drawing more interest – albeit, probably from a smaller circle of people – than a copy.
I suspect that some people feel more moved by “the original” and feel more of a connection to the person who made or used it. After all, it’s not just art this applies to. People will travel distances and/or pay money to see the exact item used by a famous person, instead of a copy or a replica. People don’t want to see a mere replica of the Jungle room–they want to see the exact room where Elvis sat. They don’t want to see just a replica of the Enola Gay, they want to see that exact bomber. They don’t want to see a copy of Edison’s phonograph, they want to see the one that he worked with in his own lab. And similarly, they don’t just want to see a poster or copy of a Picasso–they want to see the canvas that Picasso actually touched.
I don’t think it’s just the rarity of the privelege (that is, since not everyone can see the real thing, one can feel special for getting to see the original). I think it’s more than that. I think people feel like they’re experiencing history for real, or being connected with someone important, when they see an original object.
In some cases, for me, texture makes a big difference. The texture in heavily slathered oils doesn’t seem to be reproduceable. I’ve seen images of one of my favorite paintings by Van Gogh (Eris bless the Cleveland Museum of Art) online and in books, but none have compared to seeing the work in person; first up close, then at a distance, then close again. All that said, I’d still like a reprint, but it is not a popular work. Can’t I trade fifteen "Starry Night"s for it?
We’re social animals and as such, we’re concerned about social status. Displaying that you have enough to eat, drink, and a warm place to stay doesn’t always win the mate anymore. Original art costs more, indicates ‘high culture’ (especially if it’s “art” unappreciated by the masses) – and having something that costs more, along with being among those who are ‘in the know’ or the elite, means we’re a notch above an damn good providers. Look! - my social standing is enhanced. Mate with me baby!
Absolutely! Giclee prints are the current rage in reproduction and can fetch a decent price, even though there can and often are thousands. But the original work of art is always more desireable by those who value original art.
Consider a rare baseball card, which may have a “book value” of $1000. That true value can only be measured by the demand - if no one is willing to pay $1000, it’s not worth $1000. Or, if in auction there’s a high demand, it could go for $10,000.
This speaks to our culture more than anything else, and sub-cultures. Not all folks see the value in, say, animation art. And yet there are those who will pay $50,000 for an original drawing of Mickey Mouse.
This is absolutely the crux of the matter. “We” don’t necessarily value original art. I can get a reproduction of the painting I linked to for just over $400 that, for my unrefined tastes, would be more than suitable, I’m sure. Were it a popular painting, I might even snag a poster printing for $20 at the mall. If anything, demand goes for reproductions more than originals. How often do reprint stores ask for funds to keep themselves open?
I’d agree here. Walking through a museum of original oil works or watercolors just wouldn’t compare to printed copies. Being able to see actual brushstrokes in a piece of work is amazing. The way light is reflected off a textured surface is much different than being reflected off a poster. Even though the canvas’ are flat, the original works do have a depth to them that can’t be reproduced on paper.
take for example Georges Seurat - A Sunday on La Grande Jatte .
I’ve seen this painting in books and movies many times. But seeing it in person definately had a WOW factor involved. First off the thing is huge! It’s over 6’ tall and 10’ long. And when you look at it close up you realize the picture is made up of tiny dots of color. Not made by a computer but by some guy with a paint brush. It’s simply amazing.
Ahh… “unrefined tastes.” Reminds me of the wine industry. White Zin, perhaps a more popular wine, or an “entry level wine,” is enjoyed by the masses but is incredibly cheap. The more refined the taste (and the wine) the more expensive things get.
From what I’ve read about professional copiers (we’re talking about people who are so good that the experts can’t tell the real from the fake), they get the copy down to the brushstrokes. It can, indeed, be reproduced. They also age it to authenticate the look. It’s an art in itself.
Kalhoun, I meant that a 2D print can’t capture it to my satisfaction. I can’t yet afford a $400 reproduction (one click from my link), unfortunately. Though if everyone I knew who buys me presents chipped in some cash… What is it, January? Better start prepping them for Christmas now. They are so disorganized.
(speaking to no one in particular now)
But I think the high value a small number of collectors are willing to pay for original art seems to leave a larger impression than the picture store in every mall across America and probably most of the western world and beyond. Plus there’s the reprint solicitation that tries to snag businesses with nice, but cheap, framed prints.
I’d wager that far, far more money is spent on art that is liked for itself than art that is liked for itself and being original. The Dali Museum cares about originals. I bought a print for some small amount of money and am immensely pleased. Given the pricing structure and empty shelves, seems I wasn’t the only one there who thought that way!
No, I think it’s very different. Diamonds are mined or produced by industrial processes. Unless one is exceptionally large it has no real uniqueness. There is no copyright being violated by someone wearing a synthetic, non-DeBeers diamond.
